The landlord must plead and prove that he has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation in order to evict a tenant under section 14 (1) (e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958. The mere occupation of the premises by a close relation of the tenant, such as a brother, does not amount to parting with possession under section 14 (1) (b) in the absence of evidence that the tenant has legally precluded himself from claiming back possession.

( 1 ) THE first appellant is the tenant and the second appellant is his younger brother. The respondent had filed an eviction petition on 6-10-1970 under section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the grounds of:

(A) subletting or parting with possession by first appellant to second appellant [s. 14 (1) (b)];

(B) non-living by the tenant or any other member of his family in the premises let out [s. 14 (1) (d)];

(C) personal need [s. 14 (1) (e)] ; and

(D) the tenant having acquired other accommodation [s. 14 (1) (h)].

EVICTION having been ordered on the grounds enumerated under section 14 (1) (b), (d ). and (e) and an appeal against the same also having been dismissed this second appeal has been preferred.

( 2 ) SINCE interference is possible under section 39 of the Act only if there is any substantial question of law arising in the appellant s favour the arguments proceeded only on the basis of the findings of the courts below. It may be sufficient, therefore, to notice the relevant findings of the Tribunal on only the questions argued in this appeal.

( 3 ) AFTER observing that the landlord had simply pleaded in para 18 (3) in the eviction petition that he was the owner of the premises in dispute and needed the premises bona fide for his residence and for his family members who are dependent upon him, the learned Tribunal noted that the appellants have not been taken by surpise by reason of the landlord not having specifically stated that he had no other reasonably suitable accommodation. In other words, the learned Tribunal understood the said pleading as complying with the requirements of section 14 (1) (e) of the Act and, as I understand the learned Tribunal that it was not necessary to "re-state" as. a ground in the eviction petition the expressions employed in the statute.

( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal also held that the brother of appellant No. 1 (appellant No. 2) was in exclusive possession of the premises in dispute and that this amounted to parting with possession under section 14 (1) (b) two questions, both of some nicety, have alone been argued:

(1) Whether it is sufficient for the landlord of merely state in the petition that he required the premises let out for his own bona fide occupation without also averring that he had no other reasonably sufficient or suitable accommodation as stated in S. 14 (1) (e) ?

(2) whether from the mere occupation may be exclusive of a close relation of the tenant like a brother it can be inferred, without more, that there had been a parting with possession in favour of the brother as to warrant eviction of the brother tenant as stated In S. 14 (1) (b)"

IT is common ground that even if one of these two questions is found in favour of the landlord this appeal will fail, in other words, the appellants will in order to succeed make good both these contentions.

1st contention:

SECTION 14 (l) (e) of the Act reads as follows :

" (E) that the premises let for residential purposes are required bona fide by the landlord for occupation as a residence for himself or for any member of his family dependent on him, if he is the owner thereof, or for any person for whose benefit the premises are held and that the landlord or such person has no other reasonably suitable residential accommodation" etc.

( 5 ) THERE has been somewhat conflicting dicta on whether the mere mention of the bona fide requirement of the landlord of the premises for the occupation, as residence, of himself and members of his family dependent on him is sufficient or whether he should also aver, in addition, that there was no other suitable residential accommodation. It will be convenient to begin the discussion of this question by referring to a decision of R. S. Narula C. J. of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Rajinder Singh Nanda v. Kewal Krishan (1975 All India Rent Control Journal 320 S-B. (I ). The discussion there was whether a landlord, who had neither pleaded nor proved th